Practice Profile: Skill-Building Interventions for Delinquent Behaviors of Youth
Evidence Rating for Outcomes
Crime & Delinquency |
Recidivism
Date:
This practice involves the use of skill-building interventions to prevent antisocial and delinquent behaviors in youth (ages 12 to 21) and to reduce juvenile recidivism. Skill-building interventions tend to be behavioral in approach or focus on instruction aimed at developing specific skills. The practice is rated Promising in reducing juvenile recidivism.
Practice Goals/Target Population
Skill-building interventions include any program that provides instruction, practice, or other activities that are designed to help youth build and enhance skills to control their behavior or improve their ability to participate in normal prosocial endeavors. The ultimate goal of these interventions is to prevent antisocial and delinquent behaviors in youth and to reduce recidivism (Lipsey 2009). These programs are directed specifically toward justice-involved youth ages 12 to 21.
Practice Components
Skill-building interventions can involve a variety of different skill-building approaches, but all are generally designed to support individuals in gaining new skills or abilities. For example:
Cognitive–behavioral interventions attempt to help youth identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their problems.
Social skills interventions involve the acquisition of social skills (i.e., any skill used to communicate and interact with other people, both verbally and nonverbally).
Academic skills interventions involve the acquisition of practical academic skills (e.g., mathematics, English, writing, science, social studies).
Vocational skills interventions involve the acquisition of vocational skills (e.g., attainment of basic skills competencies, opportunities for academic and occupational training, and exposure to the job market and employment).
Crime & Delinquency | Recidivism
Aggregating the results from nine studies, Tennyson (2009) found a statistically significant weighted mean effect size of 0.25 for recidivism. This means that youth in the treatment group who participated in skill-building interventions had lower recidivism rates compared with youth in the comparison group who received treatment as usual.
Meta-Analysis Snapshot
Literature Coverage Dates
Number of Studies
Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1
2003-2008
9
114250
Meta Analysis 1
Tennyson (2009) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the impact of therapeutic treatments aimed at reducing juvenile recidivism. Databases (including PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and MEDLINE) were searched to identified eligible studies between 2003 and 2008. To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to examine justice-involved youth ages 12 to 21; use an experimental or quasi-experimental design; be published in English; and examine at least one intervention aimed primarily at reducing juvenile recidivism (which was defined as rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration of justice-involved youth). Overall, the interventions could focus on a variety of treatment modalities, such as individual, family, group, or multisystemic therapies and correctional programs, parent training, peer influences, or restitution. (The CrimeSolutions review of this meta-analysis focused only on the studies of skill building programs, n = 9). Treatment also could take place in an inpatient or outpatient setting and could use an assortment of therapeutic orientations such as cognitive–behavioral, behavioral, or integrative therapies. Youth could participate in the interventions during incarceration, while on probation, or during aftercare (following release from incarceration).
More than 1,000 studies were identified in the initial search; of those, 33 were determined to meet the eligibility criteria. An additional study was identified when searching the reference section of the eligible studies. Of the 34 studies, 4 would be removed because of issues with inadequate data provided (to calculate effect sizes), leaving a final sample size of 30 studies. The 30 studies included more than 100,000 juveniles. The average age of youth was 16 years (they ranged from 14 to 20 years). More than 50 percent of the sample of youth from the studies were White, approximately 30 percent were Black, and the remaining participants were identified as Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, or other ethnic origin including mixed race. More than 80 percent of the sample of youth were male.
Of the 30 studies, 73 percent were published articles and 27 percent were unpublished dissertations. About 33 percent of the studies randomly assigned youth to treatment groups, 63 percent used a nonrandom design, and in 4 percent of studies it was unclear the type of research design employed. Approximately 23 percent of the treatment groups in the included studies received care in a detention center; however, most of the treatment groups received treatment in other settings (67 percent), including in the community or at home. With regard to the treatment domain of the interventions, 13 percent of studies used group, 3 percent used family, 61 percent used multiple types (meaning a combination of therapies such as individual, group, or family), 13 percent used other types, and in 10 percent of studies it was unclear. Finally, with regard to the nature of the treatment interventions, 17 percent were discipline, 17 percent were restorative, 17 percent were counseling, 26 percent were skill building, and 23 percent were multiple types.
The effect size was calculated as the standardized mean difference. The meta-analysis used the inverse of the sample error variance to weight effect sizes.
There is no cost information available for this practice.
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Meta Analysis 1
Tennyson, Heidi R. 2009. Reducing Juvenile Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes. Doctoral dissertation. Forest Grove, Ore.: Pacific University.
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Field, Clinton E., Heather M. Nash, Michael L. Handwerk, and Patrick C. Friman. 2004. “A Modification of the Token Economy for Nonresponsive Youth in Family-Style Residential Care.” Behavior Modification 28(3):438–57.
Lipsey, Mark W. 2009. “The Primary Factors That Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview.” Victims and Offenders 4:124–147.
McCart, Michael R., Paul E. Priester, W. Hobart Davies, and Razia Azen. 2006. “Differential Effectiveness of Behavioral Parent-Training and Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for Antisocial Youth: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34(4):525–41.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice: